EXEMPT INFORMATION AND RECORDS REGARDING OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING OF ALAN GREENOUGH IN READING

The following information and records concerning this officer involved shooting have been redacted or are wholly exempt from disclosure under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, G.L. c. 66, § 10; G.L. c. 4, § 7(26).

The photographs produced during the investigation also include sensitive and highly graphic photos of the body, the scene, and of third parties not directly involved in this incident. These are exempt from disclosure under exemption (c) as medical information, and as public disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. There is a “strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body,” and the courts have found that this policy extends to information about a decedent’s body and medical condition. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Medical Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 134-35 (1989).

Cell phone extractions obtained in the course of the investigation are further subject to the privacy exemption (c). Both federal and state law provide rigorous protection against the compelled production of the content of private electronic communications due to the high expectation of privacy that citizens have in their confidential conversations. These communications may only be obtained pursuant to a search warrant based upon a showing of probable cause. See, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712 (providing broad protection for the compelled disclosure of the content of electronic communications); Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018) (discussing protections afforded to the content of electronic communications). The public disclosure of the contents of an individual’s cell phone would therefore constitute a direct invasion of privacy.

Also exempt from disclosure are the investigation notes created by the assigned Assistant District Attorney. These records are subject to exemption (d) (deliberative process) as they constitute work product. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d); see DaRosa v. City of New Bedford, 471 Mass. 446, 448 (2015).

Our investigatory file also contains a copy of an individual’s Board of Parole (BOP) summary of their criminal history unrelated to this incident. BOPs are generally exempt from public disclosure pursuant to exemption (a) (statutory) as they constitute Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI).  CORI is defined in relevant part as “records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge… [or] other judicial proceedings.”  M.G.L. c. 6, § 167; see also 803 C.M.R. 2.03. Disclosure of the individual’s BOP would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy under exemption (c).

Our case file for this matter further includes the autopsy report and other reports produced by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, which are exempt from disclosure by this Office under exemption (a). See M.G.L. c. 38, § 2; 505 C.M.R. 1.00 (“Disclosure of Autopsy Reports”).